Part 6. Good Energy at KEMA: Municipal Energy Aggregation – A Decision Made by Communities

This is the sixth in an eight part series looking at Charles de Casteja, Managing Partner for the New York based municipal aggregation consulting firm Good Energy, at the 2013 KEMA Conference.

Many who stand against municipal aggregation do so out of fear that somehow, they will be forced to aggregate without consent, and that they will then be given no options to terminate early. But as de Casteja clarified in several other segments of this series, municipal aggregation actually allows for more choice for residents, not less, . But there was an extra layer of choice in Illinois. Voters in communities which aggregated had to hold a community wide vote on it. And de Casteja seized upon this point. “These people voted on it. They voted on it in a heavily contested primary. In a general election, it was on there.”

Voters had to consciously decide to aggregate in each community in Illinois. Then, after that preliminary vote, residents also received two opportunities to opt-out of the aggregation after the electricity supply contracts were signed. But because of the superior savings offered through aggregation and the widespread information available to residents, few actually decided to opt-out. According to de Casteja, “they were educated through our company’s mass media. We used a lot of social networks, we used newspapers.”

Given the benefits of municipal aggregation, it is clear why so many communities easily approved aggregation. And considering the rates negotiated, it is also clear why such a small percentage of residents opted-out of the program. Aggregation gives residents lower rates on electricity supply with choices to opt-out or leave the aggregation before it even starts.